You are on page 1of 25

International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology

(IJEDICT), 2017, Vol. 13, Issue 2, pp. 141-165

Critical discussions on the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)

in India and China

Sangeeta Trehan
Ansal University, India

Janesh Sanzgiri and Chenxi Li

Open University (OU), UK

Rongsheng Wang
Tsinghua University, China

Rakesh Mohan Joshi

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, India


Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been a relatively recent entrant in the field of
online learning, yet with their “massiveness” and “openness” were posited to have the potential to
transform learning and development in developing countries by providing willing learners with
ready access to knowledge and Higher Education (HE). Early research has shown that MOOCs
have mostly been deepening, rather than broadening, access to education. Yet they have
strengthened in numbers since their inception. The current article situates the discourse around
MOOCs from the unique perspectives of India and China with three broad objectives of sharing
MOOC development in these countries, conducting a high-level discussion of the potential value
of MOOCs for their HE systems and critiquing current issues with MOOC development there. This
discussion is timely, since MOOC discourse in the international literature has swung between
trumpeting MOOCs as “disruptive” technologies to warning of the “MOOC delusion”. We find that
the concept and practice of MOOC in India and China are emerging. From the supply side, there
is a need to focus on sound design, quality and accessible delivery, multi-lingual facilitation and
efficient regulation of MOOC-credits, besides development of critical literacies for MOOCs in
learners to realize the potential and promise of the MOOC.

Keywords: online learning; eLearning; MOOC; MOOC platforms; developing countries; Massive
Open Online Course; Delphi; education; development; ICT; information and communication


The two Asian giants of India and China, accounting for nearly 40 percent of the world’s
population, have a unique set of challenges facing them as they each chart their own course
towards development in the twenty-first century. A key facet of social development in any context
is attitude towards education and how adequately and swiftly the design and delivery of education
evolves over time to meet the needs of development. While India and China might be at different
stages of economic development, one common concern is the need to scale education to keep
up with an overwhelming demand of their respective populations. The challenge of information
and knowledge delivery in developing countries and the potential of eLearning as a viable
approach have been acknowledged since long (Abdon, Raab, & Ninomiya 2008). The Massive
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 142

Open Online Course (MOOC), in particular, is a recent innovation in open online learning that
was (at least initially) promoted by the providers as a significant development for extending
education in developing countries (Koller 2012). Evolution of the MOOC in higher education is an
important topic to be explored as having diverse, accessible forms of quality education is vital for
both China and India.

Why a joint study of the MOOC in China and India? Besides the common need to scale up
education to meet the growing demand for it, as noted above, there is another similarity between
China and India in terms of their governments’ active initiatives which makes a joint study of
MOOC in India and China significant. Governments in India and China have provided active
policy support with respect to MOOCs and undertaken new initiatives, either to expand people’s
accessibility to HE in general or to reform their existing systems of HE and lifelong learning. In
April 2015, China Ministry of Education (MOE) announced MOE decree 2015 #3 (MOE 2015 b),
which includes a number of policies to promote MOOCs in China . The Ministry of Human
Resource Development (MHRD) in India brought out guidelines for development and
implementation of MOOCs in March 2016 (MHRD 2016). Indeed, as noted by Kim et al. (2015),
this is a fundamental difference regarding MOOCs between most Asian Countries (like India and
China) and the Western countries – namely, the governments’ active initiatives in the former.

The move towards online learning opportunities is evident amongst both developed and
developing countries in recent times (Mirriahi, Alonzo, McIntyre, Kligyte & Fox 2015). Specifically,
MOOC, which is the latest artefact in online learning, has caught on fast in China and India. The
three main US-based MOOCs - edX, Coursera and Udacity - in their very first year, 2012, each
had a large number of Indian enrolments, representing between 10-15% of total enrolments
(Bhattacharyya 2013). In 2016, the number of India’s MOOC learners ranked at 3rd place in the
world, after the U.S. and Brazil and China’s at 4 place after India (Shi & Yu 2016). Yet India and
China present interesting contrast in their speed and depth of response to the MOOC
phenomenon. While India mainly remains a consumer of the branded MOOC, China where too
MOOCs have gained vast popularity since 2013 (Lingfeng 2016) has also substantially jumped on
the MOOC bandwagon itself – China has not only partnered with some global MOOC platforms
like Coursera, edX and FutureLearn, but also has developed platforms of its own. XuetangX, the
major MOOCs and blended learning portal from China, crossed 2.7 million students in May, 2016
(Lingfeng 2016). By the end of 2016, it offered nearly 400 courses and had over 6 million
registrants worldwide and was the 3rd largest MOOCs provider in the world behind Coursera and
edX by registration count (Shah 2016).


The MOOC has been continuously evolving since 2008 so there are a number of variants and
definitions. Primarily, there are two broad strands of MOOCs, namely, cMOOCs (based on the
principles of the learning theory of Connectivism (Siemens 2004) and the notion of Connective
Knowledge (Downes 2007)) and x-MOOCs (based on cognitivist and behaviourist approach
(Conole 2015; Kop 2011)). Past MOOC literature reviews (Veletsianos & Shepherdson 2016;
Ebben & Murphy 2014; Hew & Cheung 2014 and Jacoby 2014, to name a few) have identified the
dichotomy between cMOOCs and xMOOCs as a salient theme in the MOOC literature. Here are
two definitions of the MOOC in the c-MOOC and x-MOOC tradition respectively.

The MOE policy suggests universities to be main bodies for MOOC development and
construction, and also to advise the private sector in joint development. MOE indicated that
they will strengthen the standardization and regulation of MOOCs in China.

“A MOOC is an online course with the option of free and open registration, a publicly shared
curriculum, and open-ended outcomes. MOOCs integrate social networking, accessible online
resources, and are facilitated by leading practitioners in the field of study.” (McAuley, Stewart,
Siemens & Cormier 2010, p.10)

“A massive open online course (MOOC) is an online course aimed at unlimited participation and
open access via the web.” (Kaplan & Haenlein 2016)

However, writing in the UK context Bayne & Ross (2014) dismiss the utility of “broad-brush
descriptions of MOOC pedagogy in terms of a cMOOC/xMOOC binary (that) are no longer
representative or particularly useful” (p.8) They insist that “MOOCs are multiple…(having)
multiple pedagogic forms and intentions” and further that “a more nuanced approach to
institutional thinking around MOOCs is now needed: one which takes account of an analysis of
MOOC pedagogy at a micro level of individual course design” (Bayne & Ross 2014, p.8). Other
frameworks for analyzing and classifying MOOCs have been proposed. Clarke (2013) proposed
eight types of MOOCs based on pedagogical approach and learning functionality, Downes (2010)
suggested four criteria: autonomy, diversity, openness, and interactivity while Conole (2014)
proposed twelve dimensions of a MOOC, namely, degree of openness, amount of use of
multimedia, amount of communication, extent to which reflection is encouraged, collaboration
included, scale of participation (massification), diversity, autonomy, how informal or formal it is,
level of assessment, level of quality assurance and type of learner pathway. However, an in-
depth discussion of MOOC definitions and classifications is beyond the scope of the current

Historically, MOOC developed as an offshoot of the OpenCourseWare (OCW) movement as

need of new tools in OCW was felt to make it more dynamic, interactive, social and amenable to
assessment (Martinez 2014). However, the definition of ‘Open’ in MOOC has been debatable and
the lack of clarity regarding ‘Open’ in MOOC is deplored (Martinez 2014) - in OCW, ‘Open’ refers
to free, accessible and reusable whereas in MOOCs, ‘Open’ means free (at least the content) and
accessible (during the course timetable), but reusability is not assured. Indeed, with the
monetization efforts of MOOC companies such as Coursera, edX and Udacity and business
models around MOOC evolving through 2015-2016 (Shah 2016), ‘open’-ness of the branded
MOOC has further shrunk.

The current authors have considerable experience with Open Educational Resources (OERs) and
MOOCs themselves and have been keenly following developments in the MOOC sphere in India
and China. Since the agenda of the current research is quite specialized in terms of assessing
the uptake of the MOOC in China and India - contexts where, in our considered opinion, a very
nuanced approach to MOOC definition and categorization on the basis of shades of ‘openness’
and ‘massiveness’ may not be necessary - we would steer clear of the grey areas and debates
regarding ‘open’ aspect of the MOOC here and for the purposes of this paper work with the
following general definition of a MOOC: “MOOC is an online learning ecosystem featuring open
enrollment and characterized by structured learning pathways with or without credit administered
through a digital platform.”

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: First, three broad themes from a literature
analysis at international level are presented in order to put the discussion of the MOOC in China
and India in perspective. After delineating the research objective and methodology, the next two
sections, namely, current status and potential value of the MOOC for the Chinese and Indian
higher education systems, provide a contextual background of MOOC development in the
respective countries. These two sections are based on a review of the available India and China
centric MOOC literature. The next section investigates our research question of identifying the
specific issues and concerns with development of MOOCs in India and China. Delphi is used to
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 144

elicit expert opinions and as a standard for discussion for this part. Limitations of our Delphi study
are noted and finally, conclusions are drawn inferring from the results of the documental analysis
and Delphi group.


In this section the authors attempt to introduce three broad themes emerging from an analysis of
the international MOOC literature. Exploration of the regional situations of China and India such
as the one undertaken in this research could contribute to enrich the current understanding of
MOOCs and throw new light on these themes.

Skewed geographical distribution of MOOCs research

Liyanagunawardena, Adams & Williams (2013) deplored the majority of the MOOC research
arising from Western authors. Such research, they indicated, may fail to address MOOCs and
MOOC learners in developing countries under different conditions. By 2016 one still notes this
geographical skewness - most of the MOOCs research and literature has emanated from North
America and Europe. For instance, out of the 183 empirical peer-reviewed papers focusing on
MOOCs, published between Jan 2013-2015 that constituted the corpus of Veletsianos and
Shepherdson (2016)’s study, over 82% had author affiliations of North America and Europe; Asia
accounted for only 8% of the author affiliations with China alone accounting for 5.4% and India
less than 1%. Similar is the finding of Gasevic, Kovanovic, Joksimovic & Siemens (2014) as they
examined the distribution of grant applications submitted to the MOOC Research Initiative. Thus
peer-reviewed MOOCs research is far from being a global phenomenon. In view of this skewed
geographical distribution of MOOCs research, the development of current understanding of
MOOCs might be limited in scope.

A nascent research field with emergent methodological approaches

Early scholarly research into the MOOC phenomenon was predominantly qualitative: case-study
and narrative research seemed to predominate (Jacoby 2014). But since 2014, there have been a
number of quantitative studies beginning with institutional reports analyzing data from the
learners’ activity logs like Ho, Reich, Nesterko, Seaton, Mullaney, Waldo & Chuang 2014.
Raffaghelli, Cucchiara & Persico (2015) analyzed 60 relevant papers published during the period
January 2008–May 2014 in order to explore the methodological approaches most commonly
adopted in the scholarly literature on MOOCs. The emerging picture, they say, is that of “a
research field in its infancy, heavily relying on theoretical research and case studies, which is just
beginning to identify suitable methods to deal with large cohorts of learners, very large amounts
of data and new ways of learning”. Also, “different epistemological and ontological conceptions of
the authors of the papers about the nature of the issues faced and the way they should be
studied” (Raffaghelli et al. 2015, p.1) make for varied and fragmented methodological
approaches. Besides, those not part of the MOOC-offering institutions researching MOOCs face
a common challenge of difficulty in obtaining data which further constrains the set of feasible
methodological approaches.

MOOC as an emerging concept with unsure prognosis

MOOC discourse in the literature has swung between trumpeting the MOOCs as ‘disruptive’
technologies (Flynn 2013; Jacoby 2014; Conole 2015) to warning of the ‘MOOC delusion’
(Sharma 2013; Bady 2013). Past thematic reviews and scholarly syntheses of MOOC literature
(Haggard, Brown, Mills, Tait, Warburton, Lawton & Angulo 2013; Bayne & Ross 2014; Ebben &
Murphy 2014; Yousef, Chatti, Schroeder, Wosnitza & Jakobs 2014; and Veletsianos &

Shepherdson 2016) report works making varied prognoses of MOOCs. Rolin Moe in his article
‘The Phenomenal MOOC’ aptly notes how

“both the abundance and vacillation of MOOC prognoses signify that the MOOC is an emerging
concept that researchers and practitioners alike are struggling to make sense of. Little attention
has been paid to the MOOC as an emerging practice or as a reflection of how society
conceptualizes and practices education.” (Moe 2016, p.163)

Moe further aptly summarizes the state of MOOC discourse as follows:

“While the MOOC can be both heralded and castigated in research-based education discussions,
the popular discussion about MOOCs continues to grow and adapt without strong input from
critical education voices.” (Moe 2016, p. 165).


The present authors visualized an exploratory research aimed at answering the following three
research questions (RQs):
RQ1: What has been the development of MOOCs in China and India?
RQ2: What has been/ could be the value and potential of MOOCs in developing countries like
India and China?
RQ3: What are the most important issues with MOOC design and implementations in India and

Critical Discussions is the outcome of an extensive exploratory research spanning fourteen

months since early 2016. A common challenge for those researching MOOCs in the developing
world is difficulty in obtaining data which the authors of this article also experienced. Nonetheless,
in order to seek answers to the research questions multiple approaches consisting of literature
study, observation, experience survey and a small-scale Delphi study were planned. In order to
gain first-hand knowledge of MOOC platforms, the authors also enrolled and participated in some
‘branded’ MOOC courses (on Coursera, edX and Udacity) and some locally developed MOOC
courses (on XuetangX and NPTEL) themselves.

An extensive review of India and China-centric MOOC literature as well as experience surveys
formed the basis for answering the first two research questions RQ1 and 2 in the subsequent two
sections. A large amount of secondary information regarding all aspects of MOOC development
in India and China from the available journal articles, theses, case studies, situation analyses,
vision papers, brainstorming sessions or conference presentations, authentic media reports, blog
posts by internationally recognized MOOC experts as well as information from MOOC-providers
was utilized for an extensive background study. In RQ2 we were faced with the difficult task of
assessing the value of the MOOC in our countries. Critics of the MOOC have cited low MOOC
participation and completion rates as evidence that they are not fulfilling their potential to improve
access to disadvantaged students (Jacoby 2014, p.79). Bayne and Ross (2014) argue to “engage
not with macro-level debate largely characterised by MOOC hype and MOOC backlash, but
rather with the current micro-practices of MOOC teachers, and what these might mean for the
role and place of online teaching in the open and at scale” (Bayne and Ross 2014, p.9). However,
in view of non-availability of micro-level data regarding practices of MOOC teachers and learners
from India/ China, especially disadvantaged learners, we couldn’t evaluate the MOOC impact so
far using this yardstick. Instead we were constrained to limit ourselves to a high-level discussion
about MOOCs and their potential value based on discussions with local MOOC experts in India
and China and review of the available literature in the section titled ‘Potential Value’.
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 146

As the MOOC is an emerging practice and technology in both India and China of which not much
is widely known and understood, Delphi (Linstone & Turoff, 2002) was considered appropriate
methodology to address RQ3. A MOOC “expert” was defined as “any knowledgeable person with
‘significant’ expertise and stake in online education and MOOCs in India and/or China –
especially professors/ resource persons involved in creating content for a MOOC and/or
delivering a MOOC; online distance education/OER/MOOC scholars/ authors; MOOC developers/
producers/ administrators; private ed-tech entrepreneurs with substantial interest in MOOCs and
political/government voices involved in production, offering and accreditation of MOOCs in India
or China”. Using this definition, we contacted a set of MOOC experts with our study proposal and
invitation to participate. Upon receiving affirmative responses from some of them, we constituted
our study panel. Delphi was used to elicit opinions of the study participants and as a standard for
discussion for RQ 3. Three rounds of the Delphi were conducted in all. Further details of the
method and discussion of results are provided in the subsequent section titled ‘A Delphi Study’.


This section documents MOOC development in China and India at the time of writing this article.
A few reports and situation analyses about the MOOC phenomenon in China and India have
come out since 2013. While a comprehensive vision paper on MOOCs for Indian Higher
Education (Jain, Gopalakrishnan, Mehra, Kannegal, Upadhyay, Pankaj & Baxi 2014) came out in
July 2014, a situation analysis of MOOCs in China by the Embassy of Switzerland in China
(2014) is noteworthy as well. Narrative articles like Chen (2013) noted the opportunities and
challenges presented by MOOCs with reference to East Asian countries of China, Taiwan,
Singapore, Japan and South Korea while Chai & Yang (2014) analyzed differences between
‘foreign’ and Chinese studies on MOOCs and provided recommendations for future Chinese
research on MOOCs. In the Indian context, Kaveri et al. (2015) empirically investigated user
adoption of MOOCs drawing insights on demographics of MOOC users as well as some salient
aspects of their personality, learning styles and life goals. Venkataraman & Kanwar (2015)
present results from a study of a MOOC on Mobiles for Development (M4D), built and offered by
Commonwealth of Learning (COL) and Indian Institute of Technology- Kanpur (IITK) in the last
quarter of 2013 while members of teaching team Che, Luo, Wang & Meinel (2016)
report their experience of facilitating in Chinese language the MOOC course ‘Internetworking with
TCP/IP’ which had previously been offered in German and English languages. Kim et al. (2015)
attempt to present a picture of the emerging MOOCs movement among the member countries of
Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) including China and India (in chapters 2 and 3 of the book).

MOOC Development in China

China, as a developing country with around 36 million students in the HE system (MOE 2015 a),
has made significant contribution to MOOC development since 2013 as evidenced, for instance,
by the growth of its major MOOC platform XuetangX. Class Central (2016) report stated that
XuetangX, having crossed six million learners in 2016 with 300+ courses and around 30
university partners is the third biggest MOOC provider behind Coursera and edX.

Chinese scholars regard 2013 as ‘the year of the Chinese MOOC’ (Chai & Yang 2014). Table 1
summarizes the major milestones in the development of the major MOOC platforms in China,
including XuetangX, China Universities MOOC, CNMOOC and Chinese MOOC.

XuetangX platform, developed by Tsinghua University, was based on open-edX codes with
localized modifications. It is the biggest Chinese higher-education MOOC platform, with the
largest number of active online learners, collaboration with 80 universities and institutions and
having shared its educational resources with more than 100 HE institutions through its Cloud

service. As one of the earliest and most experienced MOOC developing HE institution in China,
Tsinghua University plays an important role in organizing academic seminars for MOOC
researchers and offering MOOC trainings for HE institutions nationwide (Xiao 2015).

Table 1: MOOC Development in China

Serial Platform Key Events


1 XuetangX May 2013: Tsinghua University joined edX as one of its first batch of Asia University members.
m Oct 2013: Tsinghua University officially announced
XuetangX MOOC platform.
March 2015: Accumulated enrollments in almost 400
courses reached one million. (Xiao 2015)

2 CNMOOC Apr 2014: CNMOOC was released by Shanghai Jiaotong University
Jul 2014: Host cross-university flipped class on Harbin
Institute of Technology
Nov 2014: Collaboration with FutureLearn to publish
MOOCs developed by Shanghai Jiaotong University
(CNMOOC News 2015)

3 China University 2014: China University MOOC was released jointly by

MOOC NetEase and Higher Education Press (Jiemodui 2014)

4 Chinese MOOC Feb 2015: Released jointly by Peking University and

www.chinesemoo Alibaba (Tengxun Education 2015)

5 (Chinese MOOCs Over 2013-2016, a large number of MOOC courses

on) edX and developed by Chinese Universities have been offered for
Coursera global audience on edX and Coursera. Among them,
Tsinghua and Peking Universities offered the maximum
number of courses on edX and Peking on Coursera.

MOOCs have become one of the most popular forms of online education in China since 2012.
There were 1.51 million registered users from 126 countries/regions and 2.98 million cumulative
enrollments on XuetangX by 2015. Most popular courses on XuetangX had cumulative
enrolments of over 150,000 each in 2015 (Xiao 2015). By end of 2016, XuetangX became the
third largest MOOC provider in the world after Coursera and edX by registration count with over 6
million learners (Shah 2016).

MOOC Development in India

The first MOOC experiments in India took place in 2012 with a course offered by Dr. Gautam
Schroff of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and an adjunct faculty at Indian Institute of
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 148

Technology (IIT), Delhi. Also Larks Learning (Downes 2012a) as well as Sunstone (Sunstone
Business School 2012) independently came up with the first indigenous MOOCs in the private
sector in 2012. IIT, Kanpur developed an indigenously built mooKIT platform in 2014; IIT
BombayX, a customization of the open-source edX platform, came up in 2014-15 and NPTEL
content is being delivered through Google Coursebuilder since 2014. The Swayam platform was
inaugurated in July 2017. Table 2 summarizes the major initiatives towards MOOC development
in India.
Table 2: MOOC Development in India

Platform/ Key Events


NPTEL • 2006: NPTEL began as educational content repository similar to MIT

(http://nptel.a Open Course Ware. It is one of largest publishers of OERs in the world today.
• 2014: NPTEL MOOCs powered by Google’s open-source platform
Course Builder were launched. The first batch of three MOOC-like
online certification courses was offered.
• 2015-16: 90 MOOC courses ran in the second year 2015 and 47 in the
period Jan-May 2016. 100 MOOC courses have been announced by
NPTEL with scheduled dates for start and finish (July 2016-December

mooKIT • A lightweight platform conceived, designed and developed at IIT Kanpur

(http://www.m over the period 2012-14. • 2014: Two MOOCs were launched using this platform: a) Architecting
Software for the Cloud and b) MOOC on MOOCs. Around 2300
students and professionals participated in it.
• 2015: A course on ICT Basics was launched which was attended by
students and professionals from 47 countries. The University of the
South Pacific, Fiji, successfully launched and conducted a MOOC
‘Climate Change and Pacific Islands’ using mooKIT.
• 2016: A set of five agricultural courses targeting the students and
teachers of agricultural programs under the umbrella of agMOOCs were
launched (mooKIT 2016).

• The first Indian MOOC on edX targeted at a global audience ran in July
(Indian 2014, attracting over 35,000 learners.
MOOCs on) • After IIT Bombay some other institutions offered MOOCs on edX and
edX and Coursera in 2015.

IIT BombayX • This MOOC platform incorporating multilingual support was started in
2014-15. It is being used for delivering blended MOOCs as well (IIT
Bombay 2015).

Professors Prabhakar and Sodhi from the IITs (at Kanpur and Ropar) collaboratively ran this India’s first
MOOC on a locally built and manageable MOOC platform at IIT Kanpur during 2014.
These include Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, the Indian Institute of Management at
Bangalore, and the Indian School of Business.

Ministry of • Oct 2015: National Stakeholder Summit to brainstorm on purpose,

Human design, development and delivery of MOOCs for University-level
Resource credits
Development • March 2016: Guidelines to institutions for development and
(MHRD)- implementation of MOOCs released by the MHRD
recommende • June 2016: Microsoft was awarded a contract for development of
platform • July 2017: The SWAYAM portal was finally launched on July 9, 2017

However, a stable and full-fledged MOOC platform with consistently ‘massive’ enrolments
(beyond, say, 100,000 registrants in a course) is yet to be built and operated in India.
Interestingly, though, several adaptations of existing online learning tools using elements of
MOOCs and mobile learning have come up on the scene in recent times in the edtech sphere.
These include initiatives like Classle, WizIQ, Simplilearn, Millionlights, Chalk Street and Vedantu
to name a few.

While not at the ‘massive’ scale as some of the more popular international MOOCs, the first pilot
course by the IITs on mooKIT was considered a relative success due to the significantly greater
completion rates than the international MOOCs (Jordan 2014). On the other hand, ‘blended
MOOCs’ have been offered through IIT BombayX where educators enrol in a MOOC and then
use it in a blended format at their own institutions. It allows the highest level of quality content
from the IIT to trickle down to the smaller institutions, replacing the need for highly trained faculty.


India and China-centric MOOC literature is replete with references to MOOCs and their several
variants available today holding promise for HE in our countries in view of the problems of scale,
access and quality. Chen (2013) noted MOOC opportunities and challenges with reference to
economics, culture, language, and instruction from the perspective of China and other East Asian
countries. In the first vision paper on MOOCs in the Indian context, Jain et al. (2014) build a
comprehensive vision of MOOCs for Indian HE and propose detailed pathways for propagation
and adoption. In a recent article Shi and Yu (2016) dwell on how the emergence of MOOC has
changed the conventional paradigm of learning and teaching in most Chinese universities and
describe responses of China’s higher education institutions confronted with opportunities and
challenges that MOOCs have brought about.

In this section five dimensions of value of MOOC for Chinese and Indian HE systems have been
introduced, namely, overcoming the constraints of physical infrastructure and teaching resources,
movement towards ‘open’-ness, promoting development and practice of online and blended
pedagogy to improve quality and scale within the existing University system, better recognition of
online learning and even online degrees and international marketing and outreach of Chinese and
Indian HE institutions. These common dimensions for both country contexts were derived from
document study and discussions with local MOOC experts in India and China besides dialogue
among the authors.

1. Overcoming the constraints of physical infrastructure and teaching resources

The NMEICT project in India was the precursor to SWAYAM, the current MOOC project of the GoI.
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 150

There is a dire lack of brick-and-mortar colleges and ‘good’ teaching faculty in India to achieve
the goal of the Government of India (GoI) to raise the gross enrolment ratio (GER) to over 30
percent by 2020 (Jain et al. 2014). In case of China too, the gap between demand for and supply
of HE continues to be high (MOE 2015a). There are at least two ways in which MOOCs could
help HE in the wake of constrained physical infrastructure and teaching resources – First, directly
by providing an alternative method to deliver a course – either purely online (in the absence of
colleges, class rooms with students and teaching resources) or as blended MOOCs. Secondly, in
the long run, MOOC could help indirectly by shifting the focus away from (lack of good) faculty to
developing, empowering and leveraging capable learners who take greater responsibility,
initiative and interest in their own education as well as the education of their peers (Cross 2015).
By starting out with a presumption of these different set of skills, MOOCs explicitly foster and
value these skills (Downes 2012b). This aspect, although usually not highlighted, is critical for
learner empowerment and democratization of higher education.
2. Facilitating movement towards ‘Open’-ness

While OCW and MOOCs are quite similar, MOOCs have been accused by some OER
enthusiasts as possibly being a threat to the OER movement (Martinez 2014). However, in the
developing country context of India and China, this may not be a concern. Quite the contrary, it
has been reported that with the advent of MOOC, more and more university teachers in China are
considering use of Open Educational Resources (OERs) under a Creative Commons (CC)
license to make their teaching and students’ learning more effective and fun (Xiao, 2015).
NPTEL programme in India has been actively encouraging regional institutions to adapt their
materials for their respective courses, with all content being shared with a Creative Commons
license. The overall finding of a recent pan-India Survey (Perryman & Seal 2016) also supports
increasing use of OERs under a Creative Commons (CC) license. Policy changes too are
towards more open-ness in sharing resources - OERs developed under the National Mission on
Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT ) are available under
the more liberal Creative Commons by Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) license with no restrictive tag of
Non-Commercial (NC) anymore.

3. Promoting development and practice of online and blended pedagogy to improve

quality and scale within the existing University system

Shi and Yu (2016) discuss how the conventional paradigm of learning and teaching in most
Chinese universities has been changing since the advent of MOOC and Chinese universities
have begun to develop their own MOOC to stay relevant and/ or to safeguard their academic

Wikipedia defines a Creative Commons (CC) license as “one of several public copyright
licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted work. A CC license is used
when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that they have
created. …There are several types of CC licenses. The licenses differ by several combinations
that condition the terms of distribution…With the Attribution (BY) right, licensees may copy,
distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works and remixes based on it only
if they give the author or licensor the credits (attribution) in the manner specified by these. With
the Share-alike (SA) right, licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical
("not more restrictive") to the license that governs the original work.... Without share-alike,
derivative works might be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, e.g.
CC BY to CC BY-NC.) With Non-commercial (NC) right, licensees may copy, distribute, display,
and perform the work and make derivative works and remixes based on it only for non-
commercial purposes…In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative
Commons CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0 licenses as conformant with the ‘Open Definition’ for
content and data.” (Wikipedia 2016, December 13).

impact. First attempts of adopting ‘blended learning’ method for formal degree courses in Chinese
universities were made in year 2014 (Xiao 2015). Tsinghua University introduced their internal
Small Private Online Course (SPOC) platform in 2015. Teachers in Tsinghua University and
several other universities in China modify the MOOC material to fit their own teaching plan or use
MOOCs as part of their flipped classroom (Xiao 2015). Thus MOOC is seemingly leading to
development and practice of online and blended pedagogy in China.

Prof Phatak at IIT Bombay pioneered adaptation of ‘blended MOOCs’ in India (Phatak 2015),
(Kumar 2015). The MOOC is used in ‘blended format’ along with the flipped classroom
methodology to deliver a superior educational experience—the individualized, hands-on
instruction and collaboration that no ‘pure’ MOOC can provide. ‘Blended MOOC’ methodology
was adopted to train teachers of tier 2 and 3 engineering colleges in India under the aegis of the
T10KT (Train 10,000 Teachers) project. IIT Bombay operated three courses on IITBombayX
platform for the blended MOOC operations in the academic year 2015-16 (IIT Bombay 2015).
Beyond this, there is a slow, yet steady movement towards improvement of quality and
accountability of University teachers and devising of innovative methods for greater student
engagement across Indian HE institutions in the developing private sector – as experienced by
the first author of this article who has had first-hand experience of the change, being an educator
herself in a variety of Indian HE institutions in the private sector over the past ten years. Such a
slow, yet steady change, we feel, may be attributed indirectly to the unmanifested MOOC
prospects as stated by Conole (2015) too,

“The key value of MOOCs for me is that they are challenging traditional educational institutions
and having to make them think about what they are offering, how it is distinctive and what the
unique learner experience will be at their institution.” (Conole 2015, p. 14)

4. Better recognition of online learning and even online degrees

Advent of MOOC has encouraged the government and the general public to have a better
recognition of online learning and even online degrees. There is a trend towards growing
acceptance of MOOCs in higher education. MOOC credits are becoming recognized by top
universities across China, including China University of Geosciences, Harbin Institute of
Technology and Zhongnan University of Economics and Law. This list will continue to expand in
the near future (Xiao 2015). In May 2015, Tsinghua University and Fudan University agreed on
the MOOC accreditation through XuetangX platform and announced the first postgraduate degree
programme in China, in which they used MOOCs for blended learning. In India too institutions
have started offering college credits to NPTEL-verified certificates. Release of the University
Grants Commission (UGC) Credit Framework for Online Learning Courses through SWAYAM
Regulation, 2016 under Section 26 of the UGC Act is noteworthy too. The All India Council of
Technical Education (AICTE) recently aspired that 10 per cent of courses be taken up through
MOOCs (Umarji 2016). As the MOOC model grows and matures in India and China over time, an
optimist would believe that emergent technologies would in near future not just deliver free
content but also wherever possible offer open online courses for University credits to plug the
gaps and constraints found in the University-level teaching in both the systems.

5. Promoting international marketing and outreach of Chinese and Indian Universities

and institutions

A situation analysis of MOOCs in China in 2014 brought out the utility of MOOC development for
Chinese Universities. “Chinese Universities, through MOOCs get the chance to raise their
international profiles and to show their own perspectives and methodologies on a global level.”
(The Embassy of Switzerland in China 2014, p.4)
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 152

IITs, Indian School of Business and BITS, to name some Indian HE institutions featuring on some
of the ‘branded’ MOOC platforms, are known internationally by dint of having offered MOOCs
there. On the other hand, NPTEL has carved a niche for itself internationally due to its unique
online offerings -– evidence that the global reach of online offerings needn’t only go from West to
East. (Wildavsky 2011). With the global predominance of Western MOOCs there have been
concerns regarding what has been referred to as ‘McDonaldization of global higher education’
through the propagation of Western MOOCs (Lane & Kinser 2012). To counter-balance this,
MOOCs from China and India may help to share Chinese and Indian culture, knowledge and
worldviews to students all over the world.



This section reports about our study of the current issues with MOOC development in India and
China. It is organized in four subsections, namely, overview, method and results, discussion and
study limitations.


MOOCs have been growing every year since 2012 globally (Shah 2016). But with growth new
challenges have been coming to light with respect to technology, delivery and economy, besides
pedagogy. Student motivation and low completion rates have been identified as the core MOOC
issues in the literature (Ebben & Murphy 2014), (Hew & Cheung 2014). Besides these (what we
may call) generic issues, the focus of discussion in the current study are the specific issues and
challenges with MOOC development in India and China. Branded Western MOOCs are of limited
value for development in India (Venkataraman & Kanwar 2015). In China which has greater
experience of successful, large-scale MOOC delivery, MOOC discussion has involved skeptical
voices bringing out several critical aspects of MOOCs too (The Embassy of Switzerland in China
2014, p. 5). So we decided to elicit ‘expert’ opinions on the MOOC developments in both the
countries using a small-scale Delphi study. Discussion in the current section attempts to connect
the prior information with results from this Delphi investigation.

The Method and Results

Using our definition of a MOOC “expert” (given in the Research Questions and Methodology
section earlier) we identified a set of 20 MOOC experts (fifteen on India and five on China) and
contacted them with our Delphi study proposal and invitation to participate. We received
affirmative responses from ten of them (two MOOC professors and developers with over four
years of relevant experience; four online education scholars, besides two ed-tech entrepreneurs
with MOOC and OER background experience of over five years; a MOOC pioneer and blogger
who was part of the first MOOC CCK08 offered in 2008; and a government official from the
Indian government directly dealing with HE and MOOCs) who constituted our study panel. A
small-scale Delphi study was conducted to identify the most important MOOC issues in the Indian
and Chinese contexts.

CCK08, short for Connectivism and Connective Knowledge 2008, was the first MOOC conducted by
George Siemens, Stephen Downes and David Cormier in 2008. David Cormier coined the term

In Round one of the Delphi, the participants were asked to identify issues with MOOC design and
implementations in their respective country contexts. 21 issues suggested by panel members in
Round one altogether were collated and categorized into ten composite themes using content
analysis. In Round two each panel member received feedback in terms of the list of ten themed
issues with supporting statements for their consideration and examination. They were asked to
rate each issue in rank order from one to ten in terms of its importance for MOOCs in their
respective countries (with 1 referring to ‘most important’ and 10 referring to ‘least important’).
They were also asked to provide reasoning and instances to substantiate their response and
opinion wherever possible. The panelists’ rankings as well as comments from Round two were
summarized and shared with all of them confidentially at the beginning of Round three for further
consideration and ranking. Since we used ordinal scales, Kendall’s W coefficient of concordance
(Kendall & Smith, 1939) was used for measurement of consensus. While concordance was 0.43
at the end of round two, by the end of Round three, a reasonable amount of consensus (W =0.68)
seemed to emerge with respect to the importance rankings of the issues so that the study was
concluded. A composite ranking of issues was produced following calculation of a composite
score for each issue (Smart, Blake, Staines & Doody 2010). Table 3 provides the composite
rankings of issues so obtained.

Table 3: Final Rankings of Ten Most Important Themed Issues with MOOC Design and

# Issue Composite
1 Language & Communication I
2 Internet Connectivity and MOOC outreach II
3 Content and dissemination-based MOOC learning model III
4 Accreditation- MOOCs for credit IV
5 MOOC pedagogy and delivery V
6 Information and social media literacies of the learner population VI
7 Economic Operation of MOOCs VII
8 Imparting practical and skill-based education and training through VIII
9 Fear of College Teachers’ Replaceability by MOOCs. IX
10 MOOCs as Neocolonialism X


The ten themed issues resulting from the Delphi study (see Table 3) are briefly introduced in this
subsection. The narrative switches back and forth between the Indian and Chinese contexts as
we juxtapose the related developments in the two countries.

Language and communication

Most of the MOOCs suffer from an inherent systemic bias —they are designed for and delivered
to students with knowledge of English language – students who already have higher chances for
good education (Hasan 2014). Language and communication barrier in MOOC emerged as the
foremost issue in MOOC design and implementations in India as our Delphi panelists brought out
the limited utility of the NPTEL and upcoming SWAYAM MOOCs due to this. All MOOC
developers in India must pay heed to what Rajib Hasan, founder of said in the
context of the language of the MOOC:
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 154

“The language barrier can't be broken by dubbing only ... the cultural context in teaching
is very important. .. our students commented that the organically developed courses in
Bengali are much more useful to them compared to dubbed lectures from well known
MOOCs that were originally developed in English.” (Hasan, 2013, p.1).

Several attempts at MOOC localization for Chinese-speaking users have been successfully
made. Besides Chinese platforms offering MOOCs to Chinese learners in native language,
localized subplatforms like (Che, Luo, Wang & Meinel 2016), a sub-platform of the
German MOOC platform and their successful MOOC localization efforts are
noteworthy too. On the other hand, there are online learning communities like Guokr MOOC
Academy for domestic MOOC learners. Guokr MOOC Academy, established in July 2013,
provides various services to Chinese MOOC learners like providing access to branded MOOCs
from Courera, edX and Udacity and sharing course reviews and notes, organizing and operating
translation groups for translating courses and many active study groups and obtaining and
discussing the latest information about MOOCs from all over the world (iversity 2014).

Internet connectivity and MOOC outreach

Considering self-paced eLearning as a whole, at any given time, there are over 150 million
people using eLearning in China which constitutes a mere 11% of the Chinese population as of
Sept 2015 as per Ambient Insight’s Country Report for China (2015). Besides, foreign MOOC
platforms in China still face the challenge that foreign websites load slower and that Youtube, the
tool most of the platforms use to make video courses available, is blocked in China (The
Embassy of Switzerland in China 2014, p. 5).

The MOOC prerequisite of access to fast Internet connections also creates a source of an
inherent systemic bias of the MOOC in favour of resourceful learners. According to a study by
Penn’s Graduate School of Education reported in the Situation Analysis of MOOCs in China (The
Embassy of Switzerland in China 2014, p. 4), 80% of the MOOCs students in China came from
the richest 6% of the population (Ezekiel 2013). Another 2013 survey conducted by Guokr
( and supported by Coursera and Tsinghua Online Education Office
showed that MOOC learners in China were mainly from more developed areas such as Beijing,
Shanghai, Guangdong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang. 80% MOOC learners investigated were pursuing
or already had undergraduate degree or more. This finding also matches Western demographics
of MOOC learners – most reported studies have shown how MOOC learners were already
educated and more resourceful in terms of having good connectivity and prior knowledge and
skills (Gasevic et al. 2014; Ebben & Murphy 2014). Although there is no reported study dwelling
on the rural-urban demographic aspect of MOOC usage across India, given the inherent
prerequisites for taking a MOOC, it must likely be the case that MOOC users are predominantly
urban and relatively more resourceful than MOOC non-users. Hence, claims of MOOCs’ potential
in a developing country like India must be treated cautiously.

Content and dissemination-based MOOC learning model

Waldrop deplored the popular MOOC discourse avoiding a link to existing research or historical
precedents in education (Waldrop 2013). Moe (2016) discusses MOOC’s learning model and its
lack of connection to education theory and practice. MOOCs in India are mostly viewed as an
extension as well as enhancement of open source online content. The NPTEL MOOCs were
created by repurposing the course content of 860 NPTEL courses generated between 2009 and
2014. The same strategy is being adopted at the time of writing this article to create MOOCs on
SWAYAM for 30 UG subjects under the Government’s NMEICT project. One of our Delphi
participant aptly remarked:

“Most of the MOOC initiatives are very content and dissemination based. Our field observation
as well as the usage data led us to infer that it is not what the learner wants…To accommodate
the way the learner sees we need to use technology to put in place multiple functionalities and
features to enhance learning experience.”

In China too, as Prof. Li Fei of Wuhan University noted, there is a lack of organization, too much
repetition and overlap in the development of online courses and more strategic planning is
needed (The Embassy of Switzerland in China 2014, p. 5).

Accreditation: MOOCs for credit

Accreditation has been mentioned in the literature as a MOOC challenge (Liyanagunawardena et

al. 2013). The question of MOOC accreditation in the Indian and Chinese contexts is even more
pertinent as for learners from developing countries, course participation, in real-time or online, is
expected to lead to credit (Venkataraman & Kanwar 2015). In China, issues like student cheating
in MOOCs and possibly fake MOOC certificates have emerged. Furthermore, it is still not clear to
what extent a course certificate (paid by students) is recognized by employers or schools (The
Embassy of Switzerland in China 2014, p. 5). There are slow but steady developments in India
towards availability of MOOCs for credit. Regulatory provisions in this area are only now being
put into place. UGC’s recent set of regulations 2016 in this regard have already been noted. Yet
much work needs to be done in both countries in terms of cross-institutional recognition and
accreditation to enable MOOC courses to be freely offered by Chinese and Indian institutions.

Among other things, course equivalence bodies like the American Council of Education (ACE)
( that evaluates and offers credit equivalence
programs and alternate pathways to degree attainment like Credit for Prior Learning and Credits
to Credentials (ACE 2015) need to be established in China and India too to put requisite systems
in place. The full power of MOOCs within the University system in these countries, it seems, can
be harnessed only with due accreditation and transferability of credits.

MOOC pedagogy and delivery

The question of pedagogy has been acknowledged as “an aspect of the rise of the Massive Open
Online Course (MOOC) which has had a tendency to be under-discussed in research, reportage
and commentary to date” (Bayne & Ross 2014, p.9). After assessing the literature on MOOC
pedagogy, they identify the following five key emerging themes: “the troubling of the
cMOOC/xMOOC binary; the teacher role within MOOCs; tensions around MOOC learner
participation; the meanings and implications of ‘massive’ and tracing the boundaries between
openness and control” (p.7). The MOOC pedagogy, the authors emphasize, “is not embedded in
MOOC platforms, but is negotiated and emergent… (and is) a socio-material and discipline-
informed issue” (Bayne & Ross 2014, p.8). Ebben & Murphy (2014) discuss the challenge of
assessment of complex writing such as essays in MOOCs while limitations of mass teaching
methods in MOOCs are discussed by Kennedy (2014).

Both in India and China, universities and other MOOC-content creators pay most of the attention
to the recording process of the teaching videos; online learning pedagogy and MOOC instructor
training have received very little attention. Out of the 85 projects approved by NMEICT in India in
2008 for a period of five years (2009-2014), there was only one project for development of a
programme for Bloom’s taxonomy-based MOOC content development in engineering courses for
outcome-based online learning. This project was spearheaded by Prof Anup Ray, the IIT
Kharagpur coordinator of NPTEL in Phase I and his team. Furthermore, a comprehensive well-
developed system for MOOCs’ operation and delivery to ensure the quality of MOOCs delivered
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 156

by different universities or institutions in these countries is yet to be put in place. Usually, it’s only
individual teachers and volunteers who are completely in charge of the MOOC course operation.
Indeed, the whole idea of the MOOC as an event (not as just an online class) as emphasized by
Venkataraman & Kanwar (2015) needs to gain ground.

Information and social media literacies of the learner population

Research has shown that some information and social media literacies, capabilities and
behaviours on the part of learners are needed for ‘best outcomes’ with MOOCs (Miller 2010).
These include capabilities and behaviours such as information processing, working with online
tools, managing one’s digital identity, relationship building, self-expression, participation, self-
direction, way finding and taking responsibility of one’s own learning. In China, lack of digital
literacy of staff and students as well as the occurrence of technical problems had been criticized
(The Embassy of Switzerland in China 2014, p. 5). Huang, Li, & Zhou (2016) report on
information literacy instruction in Chinese universities - MOOCs versus the traditional approach.
Su, Huang, & Ding (2016) examine the effects of MOOCs learners’ social searching results on
learning behaviours and outcomes. In their investigation of user adoption of MOOCs in India,
Kaveri et al. (2015) examined impact of several variables including Internet skills, key personality
traits and learning styles of their survey respondents on the choice to enrol in at least one MOOC
course. The results showed those with better internet skills and an existing preference for
learning through videos were seen to be significantly more likely to adopt MOOCs.

Economic operation of MOOCs

Several economic issues with MOOCs like high cost of running a MOOC or lack of a business
model have been identified in past literature reviews (Jacoby 2014; Hew & Cheung 2014).
Monetization attempts have been made by branded MOOCs for their sustainability - Coursera
and edX started charging for assessment and Udacity for its nanodegrees in 2015. Two of the
five global emerging trends in the MOOC space identified by Class Central (2015) report referred
to the death of the free certificate and sharper business model (with paid credentials). Summing
up this trend towards monetization at the cost of massiveness among MOOC companies Shah
(2016) writes in his year-end review of MOOC statistics and trends in 2016,

“Unlike previous years, no major venture funding rounds went to MOOC companies in 2016. That
means for many providers, monetization became a priority. Some of the features that were
previously available for free—certificates, graded assignments and content—are no longer so. All
the major providers already have or plan to launch courses that are paid only.” (Shah, 2016)

In China too since 2015, some MOOCs started to charge students a small amount of tuition fees
for course certificates. In India, the Government has been investing in and facilitating
implementation of what may be termed India’s own adaptation of MOOCs. A Rs 38 crore
(approximately USD 6 m) pact between the AICTE and Microsoft for building and running the
SWAYAM platform was signed in June, 2016. Although Governmental initiative is a strong
motivator and plays a pivotal role in development, it leaves a question mark with respect to the
sustainability of the initiative. As one study participant put it, ‘MOOC uptake and financial stability
is the core agenda for its sustainability in India in the future.’

Imparting practical and skill-based education and training through MOOCs

Commonwealth of Learning (2013) proclaimed that MOOC ‘as a support technology is likely to be
useful in faster diffusion of intermediate skills on a mass scale’. However, for MOOC to play an
important role in skills training, authors Venkataraman & Kanwar point out,

“a series of trials and prototypes are necessary to determine the nature and extent of blending
MOOCs with existing approaches to imparting skill training related to quality assurance,
assessment, certification, and credentialing” (Venkataraman & Kanwar 2015, p. 10).

There have been no reported data bringing out the extent of usage of MOOC methodology and
delivery styles in existing programmes of Skill India ( As one of our
study participants aptly pointed out: ‘Inadequacies in pedagogy in MOOCs must be addressed if
MOOC is to be the core technology, if not the sole technology, for dissemination of practical and
skill-based education and training.’ Most of the experts in our panel acknowledged the difficulties
in imparting such education and training through MOOCs on a mass scale.

Fear of college teachers’ replaceability by MOOCs

Replaceability of brick and mortar institutions and college teachers by MOOCs seems to have
been a global concern (Oremus 2013). Not surprisingly, this issue came up from an analysis of
potential bottlenecks for MOOC development and adoption in India and China. Although this
issue has long been settled in the West with a ‘no’ answer (Oremus 2013) and even in the recent
EMOOCs 2017 conference it was reiterated “how MOOC providers are not an alternative to
traditional colleges, but a strategic partner” (Shah 2017), many people in India as well as China
still have reservations about whether MOOCs would replace physical universities and university
lecturers would lose their jobs. Such questions were raised by a few participants in the national
brainstorming session on MOOCs in India organized by the Consortium for Educational
Communication (CEC) in October, 2015 in which one of the current authors was a participant.
Similarly, “… there are fears (in China) that MOOCs through digitalizing education not only
endanger academic jobs, but even pose a threat to whole institutions and might push some
weaker universities out of business when students choose to study at top universities via MOOCs
over enrolling at a traditional low tier university” (The Embassy of Switzerland in China 2014, p.

MOOCs as Neocolonialism

MOOCs can also be a vehicle to convey culture and worldviews. There has been a concern
regarding MOOCs as ‘neocolonialism’ – the perception and theoretical position that Western
MOOCs are super-imposing their agendas, beliefs and syllabus to the global South through the
propagation of MOOCs (Lane & Kinser 2012; Daniel 2012; Portmess 2013). University of South
Africa already labeled OER a form of intellectual neo-colonialism at the 2009 Unesco world
conference (Uvalić-Trumbić & Daniel 2011). Some Chinese professors as Prof. Zhang Jiahua
from China Agricultural University are concerned that “foreign ideas” might be imported via
MOOCs and that it will affect the Chinese ideology and socialism (The Embassy of Switzerland in
China 2014, p. 5). However, this was not considered a very important concern for MOOCs as per
our Delphi participants.

Study limitations and suggestions for future research

Our study had a few limitations. First, the Delphi research method itself has some well-known
limitations owing to its iterative nature and potential ability of investigators to mould opinions
(Altschuld 2003). Besides, an assumption concerning Delphi participants is that they are
equivalent in knowledge and experience (Altschuld & Thomas 1991). In case of our Delphi study,
this assumption could not be justified. As a result, the study outcomes could be the results of
collating a series of general statements rather than an in-depth deliberation on the topic
(Altschuld & Thomas 1991).
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 158

Secondly, it was noted that our panelists used terms and phrases such as MOOC, student or
learner, open, online education, pedagogical expertise, skill-based education and training, MOOC
design, localization, MOOC and MOOC formats, MOOC methodology and delivery style,
information and social media literacies, MOOC learning model and neo-colonialism in divergent
ways to describe similar variables or phenomena. The investigators had to collate and convey the
multiplicity of sensibilities and the conversation was dedicated more to moderating vocabulary
misconceptions rather than debating priority issues with MOOC offerings in India and China.

Thirdly, the small size of the panel of ten MOOC experts – especially with only three experts on
China - limited the diversity and depth of the discussions, especially those pertaining to China.
Due to this we could not perform a separate Delphi investigation for the Chinese context only and
could only conduct a composite exploratory Delphi study to identify the important issues with
MOOC design and implementations in India and China in general. It is quite possible that a full-
fledged study on China only would bring out other issues and produce issue rankings very
different from the ones found in this study. For the future, separate, large- scale Delphi
investigations for China and India may be conducted for a more nuanced and an in-depth
exposition of the issues in both the cases respectively and to bring out any differences.

Finally, paucity of space (word-limit) did not allow a full-fledged discussion of each of the issues
that came out of the Delphi. We regret not being able to present and unpick comprehensively the
wider discourse on each of these themes and issues in the context of MOOCs internationally
before presenting the Indian and Chinese case. For the future we would suggest conducting
discussion of the issues with MOOC development in India and China with reference to a global
literature review which had unpicked the current discourse on MOOCs so that gaps, differences
and similarities might be identified.


We deliberated on MOOCs in India and China and presented our critical discussion informed by
our own experience and MOOC-experts’ views. The conversations that emerged provide a
unique insight into how experts view the MOOC in India and China. The concept of the MOOC is
perceived as valuable for Chinese and Indian HE systems in several ways. While staying with the
MOOC technology and a minor shift in pedagogy, HE institutions in India and China may explore
MOOCs/ blended MOOCs as a way to complement efforts to improve quality and scale in their
respective systems. Beyond formal HE, MOOCs have a larger potential role in the non-formal and
informal education and indeed in general development too. The following quote from a study
respondent summarizes the discussion regarding MOOCs’ potential in developing countries like
India and China:
“MOOCs may potentially drive a larger strategy that increases access and builds
capability for anyone to learn effectively what they want or need to learn. However, this
potential may be realized, provided the MOOC design, pedagogical, delivery and
certification issues are successfully resolved and sincere localization efforts made.”

Both the Governments in China and India seem to have reposed faith in the MOOC concept as is
evident from the recent policy support (MOE 2015 b), (MHRD 2016). However, it was found that
both the development and delivery of MOOCs in India as well as China need further refinement.
Major issues there were identified, ranked and discussed on the basis of a small-scale Delphi
study. The authors see several MOOC imperatives emerging from our introductory discussion.
These are in the nature of desirable adaptations and facilitators for successful MOOC
implementations including design of MOOC with an engaging learning ecosystem, Internet
connectivity, digital literacies of learners as well as teaching staff, offline/light access of the
MOOC platform, developing organic MOOCs in regional languages, offering credit equivalence

and implementing MOOCs in blended mode with flipped classrooms and local facilitators. The
economics as well as the academic officialdom of MOOCs in India and China must take
cognizance of these imperatives. Integration of these elements into superior MOOC development
and delivery would improve chances of ‘MOOC-Nirvaan’ in our countries – a state characterized
by ‘success’ of MOOC learners and the ventures servicing them. Besides, it would facilitate
resurrection of the very idea of the MOOC, which has been struggling to emerge from the Trough
of Disillusionment on the Gartner Hype Cycle (Linden & Fenn 2003) globally, to the Slopes of
Enlightenment. Tathastu (Amen)!


Abdon, B., Raab, R. & Ninomiya, S. 2008, "eLearning for international agriculture development:
Dealing with challenges". International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), vol.4, no.1, pp. 80-94.

ACE. 2015, Credit for Prior Learning. [Online] Available at:

Altschuld, J.W. 2003, Delphi technique. Lecture, applied evaluation design.

Altschuld, J.W. & Thomas, P.M. 1991, “Considerations in the application of a modified scree test
for Delphi survey data”. Evaluation Review, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.179-188.

Ambient Insight, 2015, The 2015-2020 China Self-paced eLearning Market. [Online]
Available at:

Bady, A. 2013, "The MOOC bubble and the attack on public education". AcademicMatters: The
Journal of Higher Education, vol. 8, no.1.

Bayne, S. & Ross, J. 2014, The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: The UK view.
York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.

Bhattacharyya, R. 2013, US-based MOOCs consortia in tie-ups with local universities for taking
content online. The Economic Times, 19 July.

Chai, Y. and Yang, L.S. 2014 June, A Literature Review of MOOC. In 3rd International
Conference on Science and Social Research (ICSSR 2014). Atlantis Press.

Chen, J. C. C. 2013, Opportunities and challenges of MOOCs: perspectives from Asia. [Online]
Available at:

Che, X., Luo, S., Wang, C. & Meinel, C. 2016, "An attempt at mooc localization for chinese-
speaking users". International Journal of Information and Education Technology,vol. 6,
no. 2, p. 90.

China University of Geosciences (CUG). 2015, [Online]

Available at:
[Accessed 28 June 2016].
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 160

Clark, D. 2013. MOOCs: taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC. Donald Clark Plan B.

Class Central. 2015, 5 Biggest MOOC Trends of 2015 - Continued Growth in MOOCs fueled by
Expanding Availability, Monetization and Funding. [Online]
Available at:

Class Central. 2016, 6 Biggest MOOC Trends of 2016. [online] Available at: https://www.class-

CNMOOC News. 2015, [Online]

Available at:

Commonwealth of Learning. 2013, Events. [Online]

Available at:

Conole, G. G. 2014, "A new classification schema for MOOCs". The International Journal for
Innovation and Quality in Learning, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 65-77.

Conole, G. G. 2015, "MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner
experience and quality of MOOCs". Revista de Educación a Distancia, Issue 39.

Cross, J. 2015, Aha! Get Smart. Lulu. com.

Daniel, J. 2012, "Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility".
Journal of Interactive Media in Education, Issue 3.

Downes, S. 2007, An Introduction to Connective Knowledge. In: T. Hug, ed. Media, Knowledge
& Education – Exploring new Spaces, Relations and Dynamics in Digital Media
Ecologies. Proceedings of the International Conference held on June 25-26, 2007.

Downes, S. 2010. Fairness and equity in education. Huff Post Education.

Downes, S. 2012a, International MOOCs Past and Present. [Online]

Available at:

Downes, S. 2012b, What a MOOC Does - #Change11. [Online]

Available at:

Ebben, M. & Murphy, J. S. 2014, "Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent
MOOC scholarship". Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 328-345.

Flynn, J. T. 2013, "MOOCs: Disruptive Innovation and the Future of Higher Education". Christian
Education Journal, vol.10, no. 1.

Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S. & Siemens, G. 2014, "Where is research on massive
open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative". The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol.15, no. 5.

Haggard, S., Brown, S., Mills, R., Tait, A., Warburton, S., Lawton, W. & Angulo, T. 2013, The
Maturing of the MOOC: literature review of massive open online courses and other
forms of online distance learning, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UK

Hasan, R. 2013, What is one accomplishment you are most proud of. [Online]
Available at:

Hasan, R. 2014, "The Shikkhok Project: Building an Ultra-low cost Crowdsourced MOOC for
Non-English Speaking Students in South Asia". Cambridge, MA, Learning with MOOCs:
A Practitioner's Workshop.

Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W.S. 2014, “Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses
(MOOCs): Motivations and challenges”. Educational Research Review, vol. 12, pp. 45-

Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I. 2014,
HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses, fall 2012-summer 2013,
HarvardX and MITx Working Paper No. 1.

Huang, R., Li, B. & Zhou, L. 2016, "Information literacy instruction in Chinese universities:
MOOCs versus the traditional approach". Library Hi Tech, vol.34, no.2.

IIT Bombay, 2015, Minutes Consultation Conclave on Blended MOOCs. [Online]

Available at:

iversity. 2014, March 24. Meet Our Online Learning Friends from China: Guokr MOOC Academy
[Blog post]. Available at:

Jacoby, J. 2014, "The disruptive potential of the Massive Open Online Course: A literature
review". Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, vol. 18, no.1, p. 73.

Jain, B.N., Gopalakrishnan, G., Mehra, L., Kannegal, M., Upadhyay, M., Pankaj, R. & Baxi, V.
2014, indiamoocs. [Online]
Available at:

Jiemodui (2014, May 8th) [Online] Available at:

Jordan, K. 2014. "Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses".
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol.15, no.1.

Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M. 2016. “Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs,
SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster”. Business Horizons.

Kaveri, A., Gunasekar, S., Gupta, D. & Pratap, M. 2015. Decoding the Indian MOOC learner. In:
3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education
(MITE), 2015. IEEE, pp. 182-187.

Kendall, M. G. & Smith, B. B. 1939. “The problem of m rankings”. The annals of mathematical
statistics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 275-287.

Kim, B. et al. 2015. MOOCs and Educational Challenges around Asia and Europe. Seoul: KNOU
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 162

Koller, D. 2012. What we’re learning from online education. [Video]. Available at:

Kop, R. 2011. “The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning
experiences during a massive open online course”. The International Review Of
Research In Open And Distributed Learning, vol.12, no.3, pp.19-38.

Kumar, N. 2015. Adaption of Blended Learning MOOCs in India, (Doctoral dissertation, IIT

Lane, J. & Kinser, K. 2012. "MOOCs and the McDonaldization of global higher education".
education, 30536, p. 1.

Linden, A. & Fenn, J. 2003. Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles. Strategic Analysis Report Nº
R-20-1971, Gartner, Inc..

Lingfeng, Z. 2016. MOOCs shake up online education, [Online] Available at:

Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. 2002. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications, vol. 18.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Advanced Book Program.

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A. & Williams, S. A. 2013. "MOOCs: A systematic study

of the published literature 2008-2012". The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, vol.14, no.3, pp. 202-227.

Martinez, S. 2014. OCW (OpenCourseWare) and MOOC (Open Course Where?). In:
Proceedings of OpenCourseWare Consortium Global.

McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G. & Cormier, D. 2010. The MOOC model for digital practice.
[Online] Available at:

MHRD, 2016. Guidelines for Development and Implementation of MOOCs. [Online] Available at:

Miller, T. 2010. Social Media Literacies and Perceptions of Value in Open Online Courses.
Bonnie Stewart ED, pp. 612-701.

Mirriahi, N. et al. 2015. "Blended learning innovations: Leadership and change in one Australian
institution". International Journal of Education and Development using Information and
Communication Technology (IJEDICT), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 4-16.

MOE, 2015a. 2014 nian quanguo jiaoyu shiye fazhang tongji gongbao. [2014 Statistical Report
on China Education Industry Development]. [Online] Available at:

MOE, 2015 b. Jiaoyubu guanyu jiaqiang gaodeng xuexiao zaixian kaifang kecheng jianshe
yingyong yu guanli de yijian. [Suggestions by Ministry of Education on the construction
and management of higher education open online courses]. [Online] Available at:

Moe, R. 2016. The Phenomenal MOOC. In: G. Veletsianos, ed. Emergence and Innovation in
Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press,
pp. 163-177.

mooKIT, 2016. The mooKIT Story. [Online] Available at:

Oremus, W. 2013. Forget MOOCs. Free online classes shouldn’t replace teachers and
classrooms. They should make them better. [Online] Available at:

Perryman, L. A. & Seal, T. 2016. "Open Educational Practices and Attitudes to Openness across
India: Reporting the Findings of the Open Education Research Hub Pan-India Survey".
Journal of Interactive Media in Education, vol. 1.

Phatak, D. B. 2015. Adopting MOOCs for quality engineering education in India. In: Proceedings
of the International Conference on Transformations in Engineering Education. Springer
India, pp. 11-23.

Portmess, L. 2013. "Mobile Knowledge, Karma Points and Digital Peers: The Tacit Epistemology
and Linguistic Representation of MOOCs". Canadian Journal of Learning and
Technology, vol. 39, no. 2.

Raffaghelli, J.E., Cucchiara, S. & Persico, D. 2015. “Methodological approaches in MOOC

research: Retracing the myth of Proteus”. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol.
46, no. 3, pp.488-509.

Shah, D. 2016. Monetization Over Massiveness: Breaking Down MOOCs by the Numbers in
2016: A Review of MOOC Stats and Trends in 2016. [Online] Available at:

Shah, D. 2017. MOOCs Find Their Audience: Professional Learners and Universities. [Online]
Available at:

Sharma, G. 2013. "A MOOC delusion: Why visions to educate the world are absurd". The
Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 15.

CHALLENGES TO THE HEIs. Current Politics and Economics of Northern and Western
Asia, vol. 25, no. 1, pp.61.

Siemens, G. 2004. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. [Online] Available at:

Skill India Portal. [Online] Available at: Accessed Nov

15, 2016
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in India and China 164

Smart, K. M., Blake, C., Staines, A. & Doody, C. 2010. “Clinical indicators of
‘nociceptive’,‘peripheral neuropathic’and ‘central’mechanisms of musculoskeletal pain. A
Delphi survey of expert clinicians”. Manual therapy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 80-87.

Sunstone Business School, 2012. Sunstone Business School launches India's First MOOC in
Management. [Online] Available at:

Su, Y. S., Huang, C. & Ding, T. 2016. "Examining the Effects of MOOCs Learners’ Social
Searching Results on Learning Behaviors and Learning Outcomes". Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, vol.12, no. 9, pp. 2231-2243.

Tengxun Education, 2015. Beida MOOC pingtai ‘Huawen MOOC’ shangxian, gaodeng jiaoyu
mianfei laidao? [Beijing University ‘Chinese MOOC’ platform was released. Is higher
education going to be offered for free?. [Online] Available at:

The Embassy of Switzerland in China, February 2014. Situation analysis of MOOCs in China.
[Online] Available at:

TNN, 2016. Microsoft to design app for HRD ministry's SWAYAM platform. The Times of India,
17 June.

Umarji, V. 2016. AICTE asks technical institutes to offer 10% of courses as MOOCs. Business
Standard, 20 May.

Uvalić-Trumbić, S. & Daniel, J. 2011. Fostering Governmental Support for Open Educational
Resources Internationally. [Online] Available at:

Veletsianos, G. & Shepherdson, P. 2016." A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical
MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015". The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, vol.17, no. 2.

Venkataraman, B. & Kanwar, A. 2015-2016. Changing the Tune: MOOCs for Human
Development? A Case Study. In: MOOCs and Open Education Around the World. New
York: Routledge, pp. 206-217.

Waldrop, M. 2013. Online learning: Campus 2.0. Nature, p. 495(7440).

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2016, December 13. Creative Commons license. [Online]
Available at:

Wildavsky, B. 2011. An Indian Experiment in High-Quality Online Education. [Online]

Available at:

Xiao, X. 2015. Conference Presentation: Qinghua daxue MOOC de xianzhuang yu weilai [The
construction of MOOC platform in Qinghua University and its future prospects]. Beijing:
China International Distance Education Conference 2015.

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M., & Harald Jakobs. 2014. MOOCs- A
Review of the State-of-the-Art. In: Proc. CSEDU2014 conference, Vol. 3. Barcelona:
INSTICC, pp. 9-20.

Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the
journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution,
in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Original article at: